I had seen the Humphrey Bogart film several times, and so was concerned about that impacting enjoyment of the book. Fortunately once I started reading it I realized that, apart from knowing that “The McGuffin” was a small statue of a bird (In an interview I once saw with Alfred Hitchcock he used the term “McGuffin” for the thing that everyone in one of his films was after; it really made no difference to the story just what the “McGuffin” was), I had no memory of the plot.

So anyway I thought it was alright. The writing wasn't that great and I thought the various characters were over drawn to the point of being caricatures. But maybe that is part of the 'hard boiled detective' genre that this novel is the archetype of. I was surprised several times, including the ending where it was revealed that it was Miss Wanderly murdered Miles Archer. So it was entertaining, but it did not make me want to read any more Hammett. I was pleased that it was so short.

I hae and have watched the 1931 movie version. I was not overly impressed. The characters were not true to the book. Imagine Sam Spade leering (and I do mean leering) at every girl that walks by...

To understand the Wilmer character, look up the yiddish term gonsel (slipped into the 41 movie as gunsel).

Was there nudity in that version? Does it make clear O'Shaughnessy and Spade were sleeping together? I know the strip search scene was suppose to be in that one, but I don't know how much was actually shown onscreen. "Lewdness" is what earned the movie its ban after the code came in.

Was there nudity in that version? Does it make clear O'Shaughnessy and Spade were sleeping together? I know the strip search scene was suppose to be in that one, but I don't know how much was actually shown onscreen. "Lewdness" is what earned the movie its ban after the code came in.

I only watched it once, I'll have to rewatch it tonight. Certainly no nude scenes stuck out in my memory.

In the '41 film, a question is raised as to whether O'Shaughnessy has pocketed some of the money that Gutman paid him. Spade looks at her once, then looks back and says with confidence that Gutman palmed it. The scene as well as Spade's certainty makes little sense without the complete search of Ms. O'Shaughnessy's person that occurred in the book.

One thing I always found hard to swallow was the need for a "fall guy""

Quote:

"The police have got to have somebody they can stick for those three murders ... The way to handle them is to toss them a victim, somebody they can hang the works on."

This is a central part of Spade's strategy. If he and Gutman can between them decide on a "victim", the police will accept it, and take the pressure off the others. It has to be part of the deal for handing over the falcon.

So, here we have Gutman - a notorious villain - and Spade - who is still himself a suspect in at least one of the murders, and we're asked to believe that the police (and subsequently a jury) will accept their word for who the real murderer is.

Talking of the "fall guy" scene, I'd like to nominate as the best line in the book Gutman's speech when he agrees that it should be Wilmer:

Quote:

"Well, Wilmer, I'm sorry to lose you, and I want you to know that I couldn't be fonder of you if you were my own son; but - well, by Gad - if you lose a son, it's possible to get another - and there's only one Maltese falcon"

One thing I always found hard to swallow was the need for a "fall guy""

This is a central part of Spade's strategy. If he and Gutman can between them decide on a "victim", the police will accept it, and take the pressure off the others. It has to be part of the deal for handing over the falcon.

So, here we have Gutman - a notorious villain - and Spade - who is still himself a suspect in at least one of the murders, and we're asked to believe that the police (and subsequently a jury) will accept their word for who the real murderer is.

Doesn't sound very likely, does it?

Actually, it does. The "fall guy" scenario assumes less than honorable motives on the part of the police. I don't know how valid that assumption was concerning 1920s San Francisco, but I know that even today in many places many cases are miraculously cleared from the books when a suitable suspect arrives on the doorstep of the police department. It makes the records look good.

One thing I always found hard to swallow was the need for a "fall guy""

This is a central part of Spade's strategy. If he and Gutman can between them decide on a "victim", the police will accept it, and take the pressure off the others. It has to be part of the deal for handing over the falcon.

So, here we have Gutman - a notorious villain - and Spade - who is still himself a suspect in at least one of the murders, and we're asked to believe that the police (and subsequently a jury) will accept their word for who the real murderer is.

Doesn't sound very likely, does it?

I was fine with that part of it since the book wasn't overly realistic to begin with. And that brings me to one of my favourite aspects of the book - the ambiguity of if Spade would follow through with that or not. It seems as he's plotting it (with my 21st century sensibility knowing how these things work out in most recent stories/tv shows/movies of this type) that it's only to get them to confess. It well could have been, but I love that the author leaves it deliberately vague - if things had gone differently perhaps Sam may well have colluded with Gutman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike L

Talking of the "fall guy" scene, I'd like to nominate as the best line in the book Gutman's speech when he agrees that it should be Wilmer:

"Well, Wilmer, I'm sorry to lose you, and I want you to know that I couldn't be fonder of you if you were my own son; but - well, by Gad - if you lose a son, it's possible to get another - and there's only one Maltese falcon"